Environmental Crimes & Violations

An environmental criminal investigation may begin with an EPA inquiry, a grand jury subpoena, a search warrant, a spill or discharge investigation, questions about permits or monitoring reports, or employee interviews after a regulatory inspection. For an executive, owner, manager, engineer, operator, or environmental professional, the shift from regulatory scrutiny to criminal investigation can happen quickly.

The government may be examining what happened at a facility, what a permit required, what employees knew, whether records were accurate, and who made or approved the decisions behind the alleged violation.

Bedi & Singer’s white-collar practice includes environmental violations.

Federal environmental laws can be enforced civilly, administratively, or criminally. A permit problem, reporting error, accident, or compliance dispute is not automatically a criminal offense.

The EPA explains that criminal environmental liability generally involves a negligent, knowing, or willful violation, depending on the statute, and that most environmental crimes it investigates involve knowing violations. A corporate title does not by itself establish what a person knew, what authority the person had, or whether the conduct was intentional.

A company may face regulatory demands, remediation obligations, civil enforcement, permit consequences, or administrative action while individuals are investigated criminally. The company’s interests and an individual’s may not always be identical, particularly when investigators are asking who made decisions, who approved reports, or who knew about alleged noncompliance.

Environmental cases can involve many people with different responsibilities. Operators may collect data, consultants may interpret permit requirements, managers may approve expenditures, environmental staff may prepare reports, and executives may receive summaries rather than underlying technical information.

The Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section prosecutes cases under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other federal statutes, often with EPA criminal investigators, the FBI, and other agencies. Depending on the allegations, the evidence may include:

• Permits, applications, monitoring reports, and compliance certifications
• Sampling results, laboratory records, manifests, and waste records
• Maintenance logs, operating data, and emissions or discharge records
• Emails, text messages, internal reports, and employee complaints
• Photographs, inspection records, and physical samples
• Testimony from employees, contractors, consultants, regulators, or cooperating witnesses

The defense may require reconstructing who knew what and when, who had authority to act, what advice was received, what corrective measures were attempted, and whether the government is attributing one person’s conduct or knowledge to another. Sampling methodology, permit language, operating conditions, or scientific interpretation may also affect whether the government’s account of the conduct is accurate.

An environmental investigation does not necessarily stay limited to the underlying environmental statute. EPA notes that criminal investigations may uncover allegations of false statements, fraud, or conspiracy. An interview statement, a certification submitted to an agency, or a document created after an incident can become part of the government’s theory.

Early counsel can help preserve records, identify the scope of the inquiry, coordinate responses, and advise the client before interviews or submissions are made.

Dena Singer has successfully defended clients charged with environmental violations. Jonathan Bedi and Dena Singer work together on Bedi & Singer’s cases, with associates contributing where their involvement advances the defense, from the investigative stage through motions, trial, sentencing, and appeal.

In an environmental case, the defense may require technical experts, careful witness preparation, analysis of agency records, challenges to searches or statements, and a clear separation between a regulatory violation and conduct the government can prove was criminal.